The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has raised a preliminary objection seeking to have a complaint filed by Edwin Sifuna struck out at the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT), arguing that the matter is premature and outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Complaint
Sifuna has sued ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties as the first and second respondents, seeking the tribunal’s intervention in what is understood to be an internal governance dispute touching on decisions of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC).
ODM’s Objection
Through Makori & Karimi Advocates, ODM argues that the tribunal is barred from entertaining the dispute under Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act, which requires disputes under Section 40(1)(a)-(e) to first be subjected to and determined through a party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM).
ODM maintains that:
- The issues raised concern internal governance, making IDRM mandatory.
- Sifuna has not pleaded or demonstrated that he invoked or exhausted ODM’s internal mechanisms.
- No exceptional circumstances have been shown to justify bypassing party structures.
“The complaint has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that he invoked, pursued or exhausted the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms,” ODM stated in court papers.
Legal Precedent
ODM cited the Court of Appeal decision in Geoffrey Muthinja & Another v Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others, which underscored the doctrine of exhaustion holding that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists, it must be exhausted before recourse is made to court.
Party’s Position
ODM argues that allowing the complaint to proceed without exhaustion would undermine the intent of the Political Parties Act and short-circuit the party’s established dispute resolution processes. The party has asked the tribunal to dismiss the complaint with costs.
